State of Idaho v. Travis Edward Kelnhofer

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50984

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: July 8, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
TRAVIS EDWARD KELNHOFER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and sentence of five years determinate for operating a
motor vehicle without owner’s consent; and a consecutive term of seven years with
a minimum period of confinement of two years, for possession of a controlled
substance, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Travis Edward Kelnhofer pled guilty to operating a motor vehicle without owner’s consent,
Idaho Code § 49-227, and possession of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). In exchange
for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a determinate
term of five years for operating a motor vehicle without owner’s consent, a consecutive term of
seven years with two years determinate for possession of a controlled substance, and retained
jurisdiction. Kelnhofer appeals, contending that his sentences are excessive.

1
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984);
State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the
length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722,
726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could
reach the same conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150,
154 (Ct. App. 2020).
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Kelnhofer’s judgment of conviction and
sentences are affirmed.

2